DOCSLIB.ORG

Request for Approval of Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Request for Approval of Research INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD 73 Tremont St. Boston, MA 02108 Phone: (617) 725-4169 Fax: (617) 725-4166 Protocol Number: Email:[email protected] FOR IRB USE ONLY----- Meets Criteria for Exemption Does Not Meet Criteria for Exemption under category ______ HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH APPLICATION EXEMPTION FROM CONTINUING REVIEW BY THE INSTITUTIONAL REVIIEW BOARD Instructions: Please complete this form with all appropriate signatures and attach a copy of the study protocol and all supporting documentation, to include verification of CITI training for key personnel for all new non-exempt human subject research. All the questions must be addressed in order to provide the Institutional Review Board with the necessary information to review your proposed research study. IRB approval must be obtained prior to beginning any non-exempt human subjects research. The application should be written in layman’s terms such that it can be understood by a non-scientist. 1. GENERAL INFORMATION: Protocol Title: A comparison of methods aimed at enhancing student engagement in an ECR course Date: 12/13/13 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Name: Susan M Orsillo CITI Certified: Yes Date: 10/28/12 School/Department: CAS Psychology Campus Mailing Address: 41 Temple St/ Donohue Telephone Number: (617)305-1924 E-mail Address:[email protected] Faculty Staff 3. CO-INVESTIGATOR: If additional space is needed, please add on a separate page. Name: CITI Certified: Yes Date: School/Department: Campus Mailing Address: Telephone Number: ( ) - E-mail Address: Faculty Staff Student 4. RESEARCH STAFF: If additional space is needed, please add on a separate page. Name CITI Certified To Be Determined Yes Date: Yes Date: Yes Date: 5. COLLABORATORS: If you will be conducting this study in collaboration with non-Suffolk investigators or in non-Suffolk facilities, please complete the section below. If the IRB from a collaborating institution has approved their participation in this research study, attach a copy of the IRB approval letter. N/A Name Affiliated Institution IRB Approval CITI Certified Yes No Pending Yes Yes No Pending Yes Yes No Pending Yes Do the collaborating institutions hold a Federalwide Assurance (FWA)? Yes No If yes, specify which institutions hold an FWA: Does the involvement of Suffolk University include the receipt of a sub-award from a collaborating institution? Yes No Does any part of this research involve collaboration with an independent (not with FWA institution or organization) investigator? Yes No If yes, please identify investigator: Is the involvement of a Suffolk University investigator limited to the evaluation of archived de-identified data? Yes No If yes, check Category 4 under Section 7 and complete Sections 8, 15, 16, 18, 23, 25 and 26 only. 6. FUNDING SOURCES: If the study is funded, please provide a copy of the full grant, proposal and/or award N/A External Federal-Funding Agency: External Non-Federal Funding Source: Suffolk University Institutional Review Board Page 1of 6 Human Subjects Research Application Form, Version 5.6.13 7. EXEMPTION CATEGORIES: The following categories of research are exempt from continuing review by the IRB. Check all that apply Category 1. Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices such as: • research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or • research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods. Category 2. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: • information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and • any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation. Note: this exemption does NOT apply to research involving children as subjects, except for research involving observation of public behavior when the investigator(s) do not participate in the activities being observed.  Category 3. Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior that otherwise would not be exempt if: • the human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or • federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter.  Category 4. Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.  Category 5. Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine: • public benefit or service programs; • procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; • possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or • possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.  Category 6. Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies if: • wholesome foods without additives are consumed or • a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 8. PURPOSE AND SCOPE: Please provide a brief summary of any relevant background information, study aims and its hypothesis. Please provide a rationale for the use of human subjects in meeting your study objectives. Background: According to the 9th annual report on the state of online learning in U.S. higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2011) over 6.1 million students took at least one online course during the Fall of 2012, representing an increase of 560,000 students over the previous year. Almost 1/3 of all college students now take at least one course online. Blended or hybrid learning, which has been defined as a course in which 30 to 79% of the proportion of content is delivered online, has also grown dramatically in recent years, although at a somewhat slower rate (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that blended/hybrid classes (but not fully online courses) are associated with stronger learning outcomes than face-to-face instruction alone (Means et al., 2010). Blended courses also appear to enhance a sense of classroom community more than online or face-to-face instruction (Rovai & Jordan, 2004). Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of pedagogical recommendations regarding best practices in blended learning, including the development of the Blended Toolkit, an online compendium of effective practices, processes, research, faculty development, model courses, and evaluation resources (UCF & AASCU, 2013). Although these resources are extremely helpful, it can be difficult to synthesis the diversity of available information and translate it into specific practices. In an attempt to identify commonalities across these various guidelines, McGee and Reis (2012) analyzed 67 published descriptions of best practices in blended/hybrid learning. One consistent finding is that varied interactivity, involving instructor to student, student to student, and student to other resources is perceived to be key to student engagement in blended/hybrid courses. Interestingly, learner-to-learner interaction can predict course satisfaction more strongly than learner-to-instructor interaction (Jung et al., 2002; Rodriguez, 2006), thus research into methods that enhance such interaction is critical. Study Aims: The goal of the present study is investigate the impact of guided small group online discussions in enhancing classroom community and improving professional development among students enrolled in a psychology internship course. This is an exploratory project - I do not have specific hypotheses. Suffolk University Institutional Review Board Page 1of 6 Human Subjects Research Application Form, Version 5.6.13 Participants All students, aged 18 or older, enrolled in Psychology Internship (Psy 350a and Psy 350b) during the Spring 2014 and Summer 2014 will be eligible for participation. No more than 100 students will participate. The rationale for using human subjects is that the research question is only relevant to humans. Duration: From: 1/6/2014 To: 1/5/2015 Study Site(s): Suffolk University 9. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY POPULATION Total Number of Subjects: 100 Age Range: 18 and older Characteristics of Study Population: Please check all that apply. Elderly Children Suffolk Students/Staff Educationally-Disadvantaged Persons Non-English Speaking Economically Disadvantaged Persons Ethnic Minorities (exclusively) Pregnant Women Fetuses/Neonates Other: 10. SELECTION OF
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mary Klyap, Ph.D. Coordinator, Shared Accountability Howard County Public School System 410-313-6978 "Together, We Can"
    From: Mary R. Levinsohn-Klyap To: Eva Yiu Subject: FW: IRB Proposal for Dissertation Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:17:22 PM Attachments: IRB Synopsis - Donyall Dickey .doc Interview Questions for Disseratation - Edited.doc Dissertation Defend Date May 2015 7-27-14 .doc Thank you! Mary Klyap, Ph.D. Coordinator, Shared Accountability Howard County Public School System 410-313-6978 "Together, we can" From: Donyall D. Dickey [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:59 AM To: Mary R. Levinsohn-Klyap Subject: IRB Proposal for Dissertation Mary, As we discussed, I am seeking permission to interview 8 African American males who despite being at risk for failure have succeeded/are succeeding academically as measured by performance on the Maryland School Assessment. I would only need to interview each boy (preferably former students of mine from Murray Hill Middle School. The interviews would be 30-45 minutes per student and could be done during or after school hours. The name of the school, the district, and the students will remain anonymous (I am required to keep it anonymous). Each participant/family will be compensated $200 for their participation in the form of an American Express Gift Card. Thank you for your consideration. My dissertation committee required me to reshape my study and I am so ready to walk across the state this summer. I have attached my IRB Proposal, APPROVED Interview Protocol and APPROVED Dissertation Proposal. Donyall (267) 331-6664 (F) www.educationalepiphany.com GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF HUMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD [email protected] Phone: 202.994.2715 FAX: 202.994.0247 HUMANRESEARCH.GWU.EDU HUMAN RESEARCH STUDY SYNOPSIS (VERSION DATE:11/26/2014) TITLE: The African American Middle School Male Acheivement Gap and Peformance on State Assessments SPONSOR (FOR EXTERNAL FUNDING ONLY): IRB # (if already assigned, otherwise leave blank--will be assigned upon submission): STUDENT-LED PROJECT: YES NO PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (MUST BE GWU FACULTY) LAST NAME:Tekleselassie FIRST NAME:Abebayehu DEGREE: Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Determining Human Subject Research
    General Pediatrics GUIDELINE FOR DETERMINING HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH According to OHSP Policy 301 Scope and Authority of the RSRB, the RSRB has the authority to determine whether a project meets the criteria for human subject research. When the RSRB office is consulted to discuss the proposed activity, or when a project is submitted for RSRB review, RSRB staff make the determination whether HHS or FDA criteria for review apply. Investigators, study teams and RSRB staff will consider the definitions provided and then follow the procedures below for confirming this determination. The Human Subjects Research Determination Form (Appendix 1) may be used as a tool, as well as the HHS Human Subject Regulations Decision Charts. Definitions Human subject: a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research (1) obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens, OR (2) obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens. a. Living Individual means specimens/data/information collected from living subjects. Cadavers, autopsy specimens or specimens/information from subjects now deceased does not meet the definition of human subject. b. Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (e.g., venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes. c. Interaction
    [Show full text]
  • Investigator Manual for Human Subjects Research
    The University of Texas at El Paso Institutional Review Board (IRB) Investigator Manual Human Research Oversight and Compliance Office A division of The Office of Research and Sponsored Projects 1 Revised January 2019 Table of Contents Purpose of this manual .................................................................................................... 3 Human Subjects Research: A Definition ......................................................................... 3 The Human Research Oversight & Compliance Program .............................................. 3 The Institutional Review Board at UTEP (IRB) ................................................................ 4 Who should submit to the UTEP IRB (who can be a PI) ................................................. 6 Required Training to Conduct Human Subject Research ............................................... 6 Principal Investigator Responsibilities ............................................................................. 7 Financial Interest Disclosure ........................................................................................... 8 Approvals Needed before Submission ............................................................................ 8 Internationally Conducted Research Projects ................................................................. 8 Subject Compensation ................................................................................................. 10 Appropriate Recruitment Methods ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction
    Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction Research with human subjects can occasionally result in a dilemma for investigators. When the goals of the research are designed to make major contributions to a field, such as improving the understanding of a disease process or determining the efficacy of an intervention, investigators may perceive the outcomes of their studies to be more important than providing protections for individual participants in the research. Although it is understandable to focus on goals, our society values the rights and welfare of individuals. It is not considered ethical behavior to use individuals solely as means to an end. The importance of demonstrating respect for research participants is reflected in the principles used to define ethical research and the regulations, policies, and guidance that describe the implementation of those principles. Who? This course is intended for use by individuals involved in the design and/or conduct of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded human subjects research. What? This course is designed to prepare investigators involved in the design and/or conduct of research involving human subjects to understand their obligations to protect the rights and welfare of subjects in research. The course material presents basic concepts, principles, and issues related to the protection of research participants. Why? As a part of NIH's commitment to the protection of human subjects and its response to Federal mandates for increased emphasis on protection for human subjects in research, the NIH Office of Extramural Research released a policy on Required Education in the Protection of Human Research Participants in June 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Is This Human Subjects Research? Do I Need Irb Review?
    IS THIS HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH? DO I NEED IRB REVIEW? A Guide for Researchers baylor.edu/research This booklet, prepared by the Office of the Vice Provost for Research—Research Compliance, provides guidance to Baylor University investigators who may be uncertain if their study meets the definitions of human subjects research stated in the federal regulations (45 CFR 46.102). Is This Human Subjects Research? Do I Need IRB Review? offers researchers an explanation of the definitions as well as examples of studies that do or do not qualify as human subjects research. For further information, please refer to the Resources section on page 9 of this booklet. Credit is given to the University of Southern California Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) for the concept and as a primary source of information. Office of the Vice Provost for Research TABLE OF CONTENTS Human subjects research ....................................................4 How do I identify human subjects research studies? ..............................5 Studies that are NOT human subjects research...................................6 Non-human subjects research examples........................................7 Human subjects research examples ...........................................8 Is an exempt determination the same thing as a non-human subjects research determination? .....................................................8 Resources ................................................................9 Contact us ...............................................................10 baylor.edu/research HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH Research projects involving human subjects require review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). An IRB is an ethics committee of scientists and non-scientists who assure that the rights and welfare of human subjects are adequately protected in research. The BU IRB is responsible for reviewing and overseeing human subjects research conducted by BU faculty, staff and students.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Subjects Research Guidance12 21 10.Indd
    EPA 600/R-10/175 | June 2009 | www.epa.gov/ord Guidance for Human Subjects Research in the National Exposure Research Laboratory PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO.G-35 Offi ce of Research and Development (8101R) Washington, DC 20460 Offi cial Business Penalty for Private Use $300 OfOffificece ofof Research and Development National Exposure Research LaboratoryLaboratory Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of 50% postconsumer fi ber content processed chlorine free GUIDANCE FOR HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY First Edition June 2009 Director, ORD Human Research Protocol Office (919)966-6217 DISCLAIMER This document has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Disclaimer .......................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 HRPO .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Historical Overview of Policies Regulating Human Subjects Research
    [Show full text]
  • Facebook's Emotional Contagion Experiment As a Challenge
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Cogitatio Press (E-Journals) Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) 2016, Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 75-85 doi: 10.17645/mac.v4i4.579 Article Facebook’s Emotional Contagion Experiment as a Challenge to Research Ethics Jukka Jouhki 1,*, Epp Lauk 2, Maija Penttinen 1, Niina Sormanen 2 and Turo Uskali 2 1 Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.J.), [email protected] (M.P.) 2 Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland; E-Mails: [email protected] (E.L.), [email protected] (N.S.), [email protected] (T.U.) * Corresponding author Submitted: 31 January 2016 | Accepted: 12 April 2016 | Published: 10 October 2016 Abstract This article analyzes the ethical discussion focusing on the Facebook emotional contagion experiment published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014. The massive-scale experiment manipulated the News Feeds of a large amount of Facebook users and was successful in proving that emotional contagion happens also in online environments. However, the experiment caused ethical concerns within and outside academia mainly for two intertwined reasons, the first revolving around the idea of research as manipulation, and the second focusing on the problematic definition of informed consent. The article concurs with recent research that the era of social media and big data research are posing a significant challenge to research ethics, the practice and views of which are grounded in the pre social media era, and reflect the classical ethical stances of utilitarianism and deontology.
    [Show full text]
  • AUDIT COMMITTEE September 13Th, 2017 MEETING AGENDA 1:00 P.M
    AUDIT COMMITTEE September 13th, 2017 MEETING AGENDA 1:00 P.M. 125 Worth Street, Rm. 532 5th Floor Board Room CALL TO ORDER Adoption of Minutes June 13, 2017 Ms. Emily A. Youssouf INFORMATION ITEMS Audits Update Mr. Chris A. Telano Compliance Update Mr. Wayne McNulty EXECUTIVE SESSION OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT New York City Health + Hospitals MINUTES AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: June 13, 2017 TIME: 1:00 PM COMMITTEE MEMBERS Emily Youssouf, Chair Stanley Brezenoff Josephine Bolus, RN Mark Page Gordon Campbell STAFF ATTENDEES Salvatore J. Russo, General Counsel, Legal Affairs Colicia Hercules, Chief of Staff, Chairman’s Office Patricia Lockhart, Secretary to the Corporation, Chairman’s Office PV Anantharam, Senior Vice President/Corporate Chief Financial Officer Paul Albertson, Vice President, Supply Chain Jay Weinman, Corporate Comptroller James Linhart, Deputy Corporate Comptroller Wayne McNulty, Corporate Compliance Officer/Senior Assistant Vice President Elizabeth Guzman, Assistant Vice President, ERP Finance Nelson Conde, Senior Director, Affiliations L. R. Tulloch, Senior Director, Office of Facilities Development Paulene Lok, Senior Director, Finance Alice Berkowitz, Assistant Director, Finance Imah Jones, Senior Director, Research Administration Donald Ashkenase, Finance, Strategic Advisor Christopher A. Telano, Chief Internal Auditor/Senior Assistant Vice President Devon Wilson, Senior Director, Office of Internal Audits Delores, Rahman, Director, Office of Internal Audits Rosemarie Thomas, Assistant Director, Office
    [Show full text]
  • The Guide to Human Research Activities 1
    The Guide to Human Research Activities 1 The Guide to Human Research Activities Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Contributors: Office for Human Research Studies Office of Data Quality Clinical Trials Research Informatics Office Research Pharmacy Research Nursing Biostatistics Core Biosafety Officers Office of Faculty Activities Version: March 2017 The Guide to Human Research Activities 2 CONTENTS I. PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS II. DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS III. INTRODUCTION IV. SECTIONS 1: Clinical Trials and Sponsorship 2: Offices and Staffing Central to the Clinical Trials Process 2.1 Office for Human Research Studies (OHRS) 2.2 The Office of Data Quality (ODQ) 2.3 The Clinical Trials Research Informatics Office (CTRIO) 2.4 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) Clinical Trials Office (CTO) 2.5 Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Cancer Center Protocol Office (CCPO) 2.6 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) Cancer Clinical Trials Office (CCTO) 2.7 Clinical Investigations Leadership Committee (CLC) 2.8 Clinical Trials Operations Committee (CLINOPS) 2.9 Institutional Review Board (IRB) 2.10 Scientific Review Committee (SRC) and Scientific Progress Review 3: The Study Team 3.1 Overall Principal Investigator (Overall PI) 3.2 Site Principal Investigator (Site PI) 3.3 Collaborating Investigators (Co-investigators) 3.4 Biostatistician 3.5 Research Nurse 3.6 Study Coordinator 3.7 ODQ Data Analyst 4: Investigator and Study Staff Complaints and Suggestions 5: DF/HCC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 6: Research Listserv
    [Show full text]
  • Judy Savageau on the IRB Process in Human Subject Research
    University of Massachusetts Medical School eScholarship@UMMS Center for Health Policy and Research (CHPR) Publications Commonwealth Medicine 2012-05-30 Judy Savageau on The IRB Process in Human Subject Research Judith A. Savageau University of Massachusetts Medical School Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Follow this and additional works at: https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/healthpolicy_pp Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, and the Health Services Research Commons Repository Citation Savageau JA. (2012). Judy Savageau on The IRB Process in Human Subject Research. Center for Health Policy and Research (CHPR) Publications. Retrieved from https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/ healthpolicy_pp/152 This material is brought to you by eScholarship@UMMS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Health Policy and Research (CHPR) Publications by an authorized administrator of eScholarship@UMMS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The IRB Process in Human Subject Research Hello! I’m Judy Savageau, faculty, researcher, and IRB representative for the University of Massachusetts Center for Health Policy and Research. I want to bring attention to the need for us to be mindful that our stakeholder groups are often ‘subjects’ in our evaluation research. Why are there ethical concerns? Like research, evaluation involves human subjects. Study participants, vital to our understanding and advancing knowledge related to particular issues and processes, may experience risks and inconveniences with no direct benefit. Most investigators conducting research (whether clinical, population-based, evaluation, educational, policy or the basic sciences) must have their studies approved by their Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB defines ‘research’ as ‘a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge’.
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of Human Subject Research Vs. Other Project Types
    COMPARISON: CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH VS. OTHER PROJECT TYPES Certain activities may have the characteristics of research and involve some level of interaction with people. However, IRB review is only required for projects that meet the federal definition of research involving human subjects. Please use the information in the table below to determine whether your project meets this federal definition. If the project has one or more of the characteristics in the first column, the project may require IRB review. If the project has none of the characteristics in the first column, please download, complete, and submit the initial sections of the NEW application and protocol form (see Step 3 under Preparing an Initial Submission) and a formal response will be issued for your records. HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH SCHOLARLY AND QUALITY PROGRAM EVALUATION STUDENT PROJECT JOURNALISTIC ACTIVITIES IMPROVEMENT OR ASSESSMENT INTENT 45CFR46.102(d): Research means a systematic This category of activities concerns Intent of project is to Intent of project is to evaluate Intent of project is to provide an investigation, including research development, testing certain activities in various fields improve a practice or a specific program, only to educational experience about and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to that focus directly on the specific process within a particular provide information for and the research process or methods. generalizable knowledge. individuals about whom institution or ensure it about that program. information are collected (e.g., oral conforms to expected Belmont Report: [T]he term ‘research’ designates an history, journalism, biography, norms. activity designed to test an hypothesis, permit literary criticism, legal research, conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or and historical scholarship).
    [Show full text]
  • Research Involving Human Subjects
    Research Involving Human Subjects Category: Academic Affairs - Operational Responsible Department: Office of Research Services Responsible Officer: Director of Research Compliance Effective Date: 09/18/2018 Policy Summary This policy serves as a guide to the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects, including the use of private individually identifiable data by DePaul faculty, students, and staff when they conduct the research activity under their roles or duties at DePaul or engage themselves or DePaul in the conduct of the research. This policy arises from the university's obligation to comply with the federal regulations governing human subject research, and, accordingly, the authority to revise this policy lies with the Institutional Review Board, administered through the Office of Research Services. Scope This policy affects the following groups of the University: • Full-Time Staff • Part-Time Staff • Full-Time Faculty • Part-Time Faculty • Students The following individuals are required to be familiar with this policy: • Members of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) • Office of Research Services Staff • Faculty, staff, and students conducting human subject research Page 1 of 34 Policy A. Introduction The federal regulations define research as a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Human subject is defined as a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) identifiable private information. Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (for example, venipuncture) and manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes.
    [Show full text]